Thirty-Two Nations Sign Statement Declaring There is “No Right to Abortion,” But the Statement Puts Feminism Before Babies

By Julio Severo

The United States, Brazil, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia and Uganda on October 23, 2020 co-sponsored a nonbinding international pro-life declaration, in a rebuke of United Nations human rights bodies that have sought to increase abortion access.

The statement was signed by 32 countries in total, representing more than 1.6 billion people, and was titled “Geneva Consensus Declaration.”

“There is no international right to abortion,” said U.S. State Secretary Mike Pompeo.

The declaration states the signing countries “emphasize that ‘in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning’” and that “the child… needs special safeguards and care… before as well as after birth.” It also says states have no obligation to finance or facilitate abortion.

Pompeo said in his remarks, “Under President Trump’s leadership, the United States has defended the dignity of human life everywhere and always. He’s done it like no other President in history. We’ve also mounted an unprecedented defense of the unborn abroad… Today, we’re taking the next step, as we sign the Geneva Consensus Declaration. At its very core, the Declaration protects women’s health, defends the unborn, and reiterates the vital importance of the family as the foundation of society.”

In September 2020, Trump told the UN General Assembly, “America will always be a leader in human rights” and he added, “My administration is advancing religious liberty, opportunity for women, the decriminalization of homosexuality, combating human trafficking, and protecting unborn children.”

Trump put religious liberty in first place. But in a misguided decision, the Trump administration gave its highest religious freedom award to a Brazilian left-wing sorcerer who has persecuted conservative evangelicals, including black evangelicals, in Brazil. It was one of the most absurd awards I ever saw, even after years witnessing many absurdities from the left-wing Obama administration.

And Trump put the decriminalization of homosexuality before protection of unborn children. To put decriminalization of homosexuality in a conservative speech is by itself a nonsense, but to put it before protection of unborn babies is a greater nonsense. Is it any wonder that gay activists say that Trump is the most pro-gay president in the U.S. history? Even so, his evangelical supporters are reluctant to criticize it.

This is not the only controversy. Trump also believes that unborn children victims of a rape deserve no legal protection.

Even though the Geneva Consensus Declaration presents a pro-life defense against abortion, it never called abortion murder. It said,

“Reaffirm that there is no international right to abortion, nor any international obligation on the part of States to finance or facilitate abortion, consistent with the long-standing international consensus that each nation has the sovereign right to implement programs and activities consistent with their laws and policies.”

Murder is always inconsistent with the right to life. If abortion had been mentioned clearly as murder, nations would understand that “programs and activities consistent with their laws and policies” would never condone any murder, including abortion.

Besides, in a feminist tone, the document put women and their rights before family, even saying,

“Improve and secure access to health and development gains for women, including sexual and reproductive health.”

“Sexual and reproductive health” is a UN jargon for the feminist, homosexualist and even abortion agenda. So how can a pro-life document condemn abortion and at the same time uses one of its UN jargons?

Then how “improve” “sexual and reproductive health” for women? Under “sexual and reproductive health,” girls have received plenty of immoral sex education and birth control around the world, resulting in abundant sexual activity, with many girls concluding that there is no need for marriage. Under “sexual and reproductive health,” girls are led to feminism, not marriage and family. And does the document propose to increase all of this?

The document was signed by Pompeo and Alex Azar, Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). If abortion is a matter of human rights and murder, why did a health secretary sign a pro-life document? After all, is abortion really murder or a health issue? If it is a health issue, it follows that pro-abortion feminists are right because they have managed to frame abortion as a health issue.

The pro-life document should never be signed by the HHS secretary. It should be signed by the Attorney General, because abortion is not a health issue, but a criminal and legal issue.

Among seven important items, the statement put family in the sixth place. Abortion was put in the third place. The other items were dedicated to the advancement of women — when clearly it should have dedicated to the advancement of the rights of unborn children.

The document mentions women 13 times, family 7 times and children 2 times. In fact, the first item of the “pro-life” document says,

“Ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and equal opportunity for women at all levels of political, economic, and public life.”

This is a fulfilled feminist dream or nightmare. In the vision of this document, which represents the feminist vision, if men can be generals, women have equal right to be general and occupy any other male job.

While in a feminist document there is no room for pro-life words, in a pro-life document should there be plenty of feminist words?

So in a pro-life document, which should be dedicated totally to defend unborn life, there is feminist advocacy.

The Geneva Consensus Declaration is much more feminist than pro-life.

Feminist papers address not only abortion, but also the advancement of women. In contrast, a pro-life document addresses abortion without mentioning murder and promotes feminist issues putting family in second place. This is a feminist victory among pro-lifers. The Geneva Consensus Declaration did not also show any importance to the role of authority God gave to men in family and society.

NSSM 200, a paper prepared by the CIA in 1974 for a Republican administration, had guidelines and plans for the U.S. government to implement around the world to reduce the population of several nations, including Brazil, for the purpose to increase U.S. influence. One of these plans was to make the United Nations and the nations promote the advancement of women to reduce families and children.

For women, their advancement in male jobs reduces their chances to form families and have many children.

For men, their advancement in homosexuality equally reduces their chances to form families and have many children. In fact, when women occupy men’s jobs and roles, the only role left for men is… to be “women.”

So even though the Geneva Consensus Declaration condemns abortion without saying that it is murder, it contains many suspicious mentions of advancement of women, which contributes to population control and its natural effect sooner or later: abortion.

With information from LifeNews, HHS and UPI.

Portuguese version of this article: Trinta e duas nações assinam declaração afirmando que “não existe direito ao aborto,” mas a declaração coloca o feminismo na frente dos bebês

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Trump Became First U.S. President to Attend March for Life

President Donald Trump Proclaims January 22nd “National Sanctity of Human Life Day”

Trump Has Broken His Promise of Defunding the American Abortion Holocaust

Exposing the Global Population Control Agenda

Tom Parker: the Biggest Threat to Abortion in this Generation, According to Pro-Abortion Critic

Trump suggests pro-lifers have gone too far in Alabama with near-total abortion ban as he says he is pro-life but believes in abortion for babies conceived in rape and incest

Trump and Prophecies, and a New Model of National and World Leader

 

United Nations praises the Pope for backing same-sex unions: secretary-general of the U.N. welcomes Francis’s remarks that homosexuals “have a right to a family” in move which has enraged conservative Catholics

By Julio Severo

The secretary-general of the United Nations has praised the Pope’s historic comments in support of same-sex civil unions after Francis said homosexuals are “children of God and have a right to a family.”

UN chief Antonio Guterres said the papal support was “extremely welcome” after Francis’s words sparked cheers from left-wing Catholics and outrage from conservative Catholics.

“This is a clear demonstration of a fundamental principle, which is the principle of nondiscrimination,” said Guterres in New York. “And one of the things that has been very clear in the UN doctrine on this is that non-discrimination is also relevant in the questions of sexual orientation. So this is decision of the Pope is, of course, extremely welcome from our perspective.”

Guterres, who identifies himself as a Catholic, was, from 1999 to 2005, the president of the Socialist International. He was also Secretary-General of the Socialist Party of Portugal, from 1992 to 2002.

It is just natural for Guterres to praise anything homosexual, because he has condemned traditional masculinity.

Socialism is the major factor leading Catholics, including the pope, to anticonservative stances.

Francis’s comments emerged in a new documentary, produced by a gay activist, in which he said that “what we have to create is a civil union law,” a position at odds with the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Catholic teaching says that homosexuals must be treated with dignity and respect but that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.” A 2003 document from the Vatican stated the Catholic Church’s respect for homosexuals “cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”

Doing so, the Vatican reasoned, would not only condone “deviant behavior,” but create an equivalence to marriage, which the Catholic Church holds is an indissoluble union between man and woman.

That document was signed by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI and Francis’ predecessor.

Conservative Catholics think that with Ratzinger as a pope, any acceptance of homosexual acts or homosexual “marriage” would be impossible. But he had to leave its papacy perhaps because of a scandal about to explode: a Catholic school administrated by his brother was involved in a staggering scandal of 547 boys abused, including homosexually.

The scandal has been shrouded in mystery and silence as nothing has been mentioned if Ratzinger’s brother was homosexual or how many homosexual priests raped the boys.

Homosexuality among Catholic priests is the only cause of sexual abuse of boys in the Catholic Church.

French homosexual author Frédéric Martel said that “a very large majority of priests and Vatican cardinals, 80% perhaps, would be homosexuals.” But Steve Bannon said that “it’s not 80%, but rather 90%.”

Bannon intended to launch a film exposing the Vatican’s homosexual scandals, but he was involved in scandals himself.

Even though Bannon is against Francis, his reasons have nothing to do with homosexuality. Martel said about Bannon and his right-wing fight against Pope Francis:

“He thinks like me that the battle is no longer played in Rome between pro-Francis cardinals who would be gay or gay-friendly, and anti-Francis cardinals who would be homophobic and heterosexual. Everyone, on the right, as on the left, would be fairly homophile or homosexual. Steve Bannon has no problem with this observation: he also came to it himself. I suddenly understand the plan of Catholic Bannon. The Church may have to abandon its moral positions on sexuality that are hypocritical, anachronistic and, given the large number of gay cardinals in the Vatican, schizophrenic.”

By their perspective, the Catholic Church is divided between left-wing homosexual Catholic priests who want to liberalize homosexuality and right-wing homosexual Catholic priests who want to keep the Catholic doctrine about homosexuality.

The problem is that regardless if the homosexual priest is left-wing or right-wing, homosexuality is connected to sexual abuse of boys. The evidence is the Catholic Church itself, where multitudes of boys have been raped by homosexual priests. If Martel is correct in his view that there are left-wing and right-wing homosexual priests in the Catholic Church, it follows that boys have been raped by left-wing and right-wing homosexual priests.

Pope Francis is open to socialist causes, including homosexuality, because he is open to Liberation Theology and he has been very harsh against conservative Christians opposed to the gay agenda. Left-wing homosexual Catholics support him. Right-wing homosexual Catholics oppose him.

Yet, both left-wing and right-wing homosexuals should know that in the Bible God condemns all homosexuality, regardless ideological issues. Both left-wing and right-wing homosexual sinners cannot inherit God’s Kingdom.

Francis was wrong to say that “homosexuals are children of God.” To be a child of God, a man must first receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord of his life. Only after giving his life to Jesus does he become a child of God. The Bible said,

“To all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” (John 1:12 ESV)

So while a man does not accept Jesus’ deliverance and salvation, he is only a creature of God.

The removal of Francis and left-wing homosexual priests from the Vatican will not remove the problem of homosexuality in the Catholic Church as “conservative” homosexual priests sin more silently, even abusing boys. If the Catholic Church wants to solve its homosexual problem, it should not tolerate open left-wing homosexuality and silent right-right homosexuality, because both victimize boys.

With information from the Daily Mail.

Portuguese version of this article: ONU elogia o Papa por apoiar uniões do mesmo sexo: secretário-geral da ONU dá as boas-vindas aos comentários de Francisco de que os homossexuais “têm o direito a uma família” em mudança que enfureceu os católicos conservadores

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

United Nations Condemns Male Leadership, Not Communism, over COVID-19

Francis became 1st pope to endorse same-sex civil unions, saying: “Homosexuals are children of God and have the right to be in a family”

Pope Compares Politicians Opposed to Gays, Jews To Hitler

In his effort to produce a film exposing homosexuality in the Vatican to make Pope Francis renounce, Steve Bannon caused backlash from conservative Catholic leaders and was exposed for his own involvement with two notorious pedophiles

The Hijacking of Homosexuality by the Right, a Challenge for Christians

Spotlight: Exposing Pedophilia Scandals and Hiding Homosexual Scandals in the Catholic Church

 

An Empire Launched by U.S. Socialists

By Julio Severo

World War 2 was beginning, and for patriotic and conservative reasons Republicans did not want any involvement of their nation with foreign problems, but President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his Democratic Party were desperate to involve the United States in this bloody war.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Josef Stalin

Republicans thought that the United States should mind its own national problems and let other nations mind their own problems. And there are authors who think that the Pearl Harbor attack was allowed by Roosevelt to “force” the U.S. to enter the war. It worked. Republican conservatives did exactly what socialist Roosevelt wanted.

Yet, Roosevelt was looking not only at the war, but also at ways to use it to advance his personal project of a global organization ruling the world — the United Nations.

Roosevelt was a socialist very different from the socialists in the modern Democratic Party. His neocon speeches had plenty of words of patriotism, God, prayer, etc. He seemed much more conservative than modern Republican conservatives, even though his conservatism was purely strategic. But his dream of a United Nations was fulfilled — with bloody dictatorships like the Soviet Union and China getting permanent seats, by the courtesy of the United States.

In his book “New World Order The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies,” author William T. Still said,

“Support for both secret societies and Marxism has run in FDR’s family. His ancestor, Clinton B. Roosevelt, a New York assemblyman, was a noted American Socialist, He authored The Science of Government Founded on Natural Law where he outlined his plan for setting up a world government.”

Still showed that in his book, Clinton B. Roosevelt said,

“There is no God of justice to order things aright on earth; if there be a God, he is a malicious and revengeful being, who created us for misery.”

Still said that “Roosevelt’s Lend Lease policy of the early 1940s” to help Soviets face Nazis “rebuilt the Soviet war machine into the dominant force.”

So the first significant intervention of the U.S. neocon empire in the great world war helped the communist empire — the Soviet Union. And whenever the U.S. neocon empire makes its military interventions, it strengthens socialism and Islam.

As a socialist project from Roosevelt’s neocon mind, the United Nations has also been fundamental for the expansion of socialism and Islam.

Even though modern conservatives have no difficulty to see the United Nations as socialist, many of them, perhaps influenced by neocons, have a very hard time to see that the role of an empire that the United States plays today was consecrated and “patriotized” by Roosevelt in World War 2.

The socialist dream of Roosevelt created the United Nations and gave the United States his calling of an empire. Today, the United States has over 800 military bases around the world. Not to call it an empire is to deny reality itself.

It is a contradiction and shame that a nation with thousands of soldiers in other nations is unable to protect its own borders, which are open to drug and human traffickers.

So Roosevelt forced the U.S. to enter a bloody war that Republican and patriotic conservatives did not want to enter.

He created a global organization to defend human rights granting permanent seats to bloody dictatorships that systematically violated these rights.

And he took the U.S. from its patriotic and national realm to put it into the orbit of an empire.

Today, forgetting their past patriotic feelings, many Republicans have joined the neocon camps and if a modern Roosevelt wanted to enter any war, Republicans would enthusiastically help him without any need of a Pearl Harbor. Patriotism was defeated by neoconservatism.

The socialist United Nations owes gratitude to socialist Roosevelt.

The neocon America owes gratitude to socialist Roosevelt.

If America is today an empire with over 800 military bases around the world, she owes gratitude to U.S. socialists.

It is not only conservatives who get confused by the socialist and conservative nature of modern America. Socialists around the world usually accuse the United States of being a capitalist empire without noticing that America’s role of an empire is a tragedy created by socialists themselves.

So when Republican conservatives embellish their speeches with plenty of words of patriotism, God and prayer to excuse military interventionism and wars in other nations they are not doing anything that a shrewd Democrat could not do. Roosevelt is just an example.

America fulfilling a neocon and imperialistic mission of military interventions and endless wars just shows that Roosevelt and socialism put the ideological nature of America in an utter state of moral and spiritual confusion.

Portuguese version of this article: Um Império Lançado por Socialistas dos EUA

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

The Transcendent Power of Neoconservatism in the U.S. Media and among Left-Wingers and Right-Wingers

What Is Neoconservatism? Who are the Neocons?

Conservative Babylon in “Persecuted”: Hybrid Televangelist Framed by Pagan Neocon, and the Free Speech or Patriotic or Equality “Gospel” Replacing the Gospel of Jesus Christ

God Is Good to Israel: How Providence Hindered Franklin Roosevelt from Hindering the Birth of the Modern State of Israel

Mike Pompeo: Chinese Communism is “the Central Threat of Our Times”

Manifest Destiny in the Bible? America Is Modern Babylon, Said David Wilkerson

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro speaks about Christophobia at the United Nations and appoints pro-abortion justice to the Brazilian Supreme Court

By Julio Severo

“I call upon the entire international community to protect religious freedom and fight against Christophobia,” said Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro in his speech at the United Nations in September 22, 2020.

He ended his speech saying:

“Brazil is a Christian and conservative country, and has family as its foundation.”

The official UN report titled “Brazilian President outlines action taken to address COVID-19 pandemic, unemployment” covered many issues of his speech, but it did not mention anything about “Christophobia” and “Christian and conservative country.”

As Bolsonaro’s speech was very long, my view as a conservative is that he could elaborate on Christophobia, especially because about 100,000 Christians are slaughtered a year, mainly by Muslims. No other issue is more important than this cowardly slaughter of Christians, with millions more being subjected to torture and rape. But the Brazilian president chose to say very little and the United Nation chose to report nothing of this little.

The United Nations mentioned nothing not to offend Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and other nations that persecute Christians. Did Bolsonaro speak very little also not to offend them too much? It should not be offensive to specify the persecution, its main victims and the persecutors. After all, if he elaborated on Amazon (mentioned by him 6 times), COVID-19 (mentioned by him 7 times), economic issues (mentioned by him 8 times) and environmental issues (mentioned by him 10 times), why not also on Christophobia, which he mentioned just once without clarifying anything?

“Brazil is a Christian and conservative country” was never a reality in the Brazilian Congress, where Bolsonaro served as a congressman for about 3 decades. Even though he once supported Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, when he defended schoolchildren against homosexual indoctrination he received no support from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of Brazil. But he received total support from the Evangelical Parliamentary Caucus.

In fact, the fight against homosexual indoctrination of schoolchildren made Bolsonaro famous among conservatives — even though today his fight is not strong as it was in the past.

For decades the Evangelical Parliamentary Caucus has been the most conservative force in the Brazilian Congress, and I was a spiritual adviser to this caucus for many years, especially on issues about abortion and the gay agenda.

No group in the Brazilian politics has traditionally fought against Christophobia more than the Evangelical Parliamentary Caucus has done.

Bolsonaro is a Catholic, but he always knew that when he needed support for a conservative cause, only the evangelical caucus could help him.

So it is no wonder that on July 10, 2019, after he attended a service by the Evangelical Parliamentary Caucus at the Brazilian Congress, Bolsonaro said:

“Many try to reject us by saying that the state is secular. The state is secular, but we are Christians. Or to plagiarize my dear [minister] Damares [Alves]: We are terribly Christian. And that spirit must be present in all the branches of government. Therefore, my commitment: I can appoint two ministers to the Supreme Federal Court. One of them will be terribly evangelical.”

In other official meeting in the Brazilian Congress, Bolsonaro confirmed:

“I reaffirm my commitment here: the state is secular, but we are Christians. And between the two vacancies that I will be entitled to appoint for the Supreme Court, one will be terribly evangelical.”

Evangelicals never asked from him an evangelical appointment for the Supreme Court, but they understood that his commitment was a sign of gratitude.

By his own experience receiving support from “terribly evangelical” congressmen, Bolsonaro knows very well that the “terribly evangelical” men are “terribly conservative.”

A few days after Bolsonaro’s speech in the United Nations, a vacancy was open in the Brazilian Supreme Court, but he chose to fill it with Kassio Nunes Marques, an appeals court justice praised by all the left in Brazil.

According to Janaína Paschoal, the famous Brazilian lawyer who successfully requested the impeachment of former socialist President Dilma Rousseff, in his thesis of master’s degree, Marques said that “the Judiciary can be activated to face the conservative majority” in abortion cases.

Paschoal was perplexed that in a thesis about health, Marques brought the subject of abortion, including Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the U.S. That is, he addressed abortion as a women’s health issue, not as murder, not as a life or death issue. He addressed it just as pro-abortion activists do.

So Marques talked about abortion where its discussion was not necessary and he is praised by the left. What should conservatives expect from him in the Brazilian Supreme Court?

What should conservatives expect from him about Christophobia when he said that “the Judiciary can be activated to face the conservative majority”?

During decades, Bolsonaro was supported not by the left, but by the Evangelical Parliamentary Caucus. For his presidential election, he received massive support from evangelicals, not from the left. So his commitment to appoint a “terribly evangelical” justice to the Supreme Court was just gratitude. But how should his failure to fulfill his commitment be seen by conservatives?

The appointment of a justice for the Supreme Court is an extension of the stances of a president. Past socialist presidents appointed their own justices, who now vote in support of left-wing causes. So Bolsonaro should appoint someone to change this imbalance.

Perhaps the most important legacy of a president is his appointment for the Supreme Court. Even though socialist presidents have left the Brazilian government years ago, the justices chosen by them continue their left-wing legacy. What a kind of legacy does Bolsonaro intend to leave for the future of Brazil in the Supreme Court?

If he thinks that a “terribly evangelical” justice will never be accepted because of conservatism, why promise and not deliver?

In the U.S., President Donald Trump has appointed Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. She is Catholic. She is pro-life. She is a homeschool mother of 7 children. And she is a charismatic who speaks in tongues.

As a pro-life conservative evangelical, I have no problem of Bolsonaro appointing a Brazilian version of Amy Coney Barrett. A Catholic. Pro-life. A homeschool mother of several children. And a charismatic who speaks in tongues.

Yet, I see a lot of problems when he appoints a justice praised by the left, a justice who said that “the Judiciary can be activated to face the conservative majority” in abortion cases. Yes, I see problems when Marques is read to activate the Judiciary against the “Christian and conservative country” Bolsonaro presented in the United Nations.

Bolsonaro made his long speech in the United Nations look nice by talking about Christophobia, which he mentioned just once without clarifying anything. Even so, conservatives were elated.

He made a very nice remark when he promised to appoint a “terribly evangelical” justice to the Brazilian Supreme Court. Evangelicals, who are his main political base, were elated.

Yet, when he appointed pro-abortion justice Kassio Nunes Marques to the Supreme Court, his actions spoke terribly louder than their nice speeches and remarks.

Silas Malafaia, the most prominent televangelist in Brazil who supported Bolsonaro’s candidacy, has totally rejected his choice for the Supreme Court.

Portuguese version of this article: Presidente Jair Bolsonaro fala sobre cristofobia na ONU e indica juiz pró-aborto para o Supremo Tribunal Federal

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Brazilian President Says He Believes in Jesus in Evangelical Event

Supported by Evangelicals Angry with the Left and Its Anti-Family Attacks, Jair Bolsonaro Is Elected Brazilian President

Brazilian Presidential Election: Fernando Haddad Acknowledges that the Biggest Responsible for His Defeat at the Polls Was “Evangelical Phenomenon”

Understanding Brazil’s New Right and Its Homosexual Grandfather and Its Occult Father

Brazil’s Bolsonaro administration celebrates International LGBT “Pride” Day

Bolsonaro defends birth control and says that “more educated people have fewer children”

What You Don’t Know about Homosexual Activism in Brazil’s Bolsonaro Administration

Son of Brazilian President Is Interviewed by Breitbart, But U.S. Readers Are Unable to Understand His Advocacy of a Strange Brazilian History of Anti-Protestantism and Anti-Semitism and the Real Nature of His Conservative Ideas

As a Solution to Widespread Corruption, Right-Wing Catholics Preach Brazil’s Return to Monarchy

Conservative Analysis of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s UN Speech in 2019

United Nations Condemns Male Leadership, Not Communism, over COVID-19

By Julio Severo

United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said on September 6, 2020:

“The COVID19 pandemic is demonstrating what we all know: millennia of patriarchy have resulted in a male-dominated world with a male-dominated culture which damages everyone – women, men, girls & boys.”

Guterres used the COVID-19 pandemic to condemn male leadership, when he should have condemned Chinese communism, because it was exactly from China and its communist leadership that COVID-19 came.

Why did Guterres condemn male leadership, not communism? The answer is simple: António Guterres was, from 1999 to 2005, the president of the Socialist International. He was also Secretary-General of the Socialist Party of Portugal, from 1992 to 2002.

So he speaks as a socialist.

Obviously, male leadership is not by itself wicked, even though socialists demonize all male leadership. There is good male leadership and wicked male leadership.

God ordained male leadership on earth because this is the heavenly standard. God is male and supreme leader.

Socialists are usually atheists. Even if they believed in God, they would rebel against God, because if they reject male leadership on earth, how will they accept male leadership on heaven?

Christians believe and submit themselves to the Trinity: Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. There is no female leadership in the Trinity and on heaven.

Even though Catholics believe that Mary occupies on heaven some kind of leadership post, such theory is not supported by the Bible. There is no female leader on heaven.

On earth, God created women as helpers of men — more specifically, He created women to be wives and helpers for their husbands. There is no calling more important, after salvation in Jesus Christ, than union in marriage to have, train and educate children in the Lord.

Male leadership is wrong when is carried on by wicked men. For example, Muslims and communists do wicked things not because they are men, but because of their ideology. Islam and communism would do wicked things even if all their leaders were female.

Male leadership is the correct leadership. The example comes from heaven: All heavenly leadership is male. Why should be different on earth?

Socialism is a rebellion against family, marriage, natural sex, sexual roles and God and his male authority and leadership. But how can we Christians defeat socialism in society when in our churches male authority and leadership have not been preserved, trained, respected and defended from the socialist onslaughts of the world and Satan?

Portuguese version of this article: ONU condena liderança masculina, não o comunismo, por causa da COVID-19

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Voyage to the Bottom of Emasculation

Terminator’s Dark Feminist Fate

Inclusion of women and homosexuals has brought serious sex problems in the U.S. military as sexual assaults are getting worse every year with no end in sight

Leaked Army document reveals 84 percent of women have FAILED the new rigorous combat fitness test

Number of legal abortions rises in the Israeli Army as coexistence of male and female soldiers has increased their sexual activity